There
exists some uncertainty about the origin of the expression "cultural
psychology". Richard Shweder traces the origin back to the work
of Michael Cole, Allan Howard and James Peacock, all in the early
eighties. The work of Jerome Bruner (also appearing in the early
eighties) should be mentioned as well. Yet, the term was used in
Nijmegen as early as 1957, when a special chair which carried the
name "cultural psychology" was erected. The initiative was taken
by the director of the Psychogical Laboratory at that time, Professor
F. J. Th. Rutten. He formulated three reasons to establish the new
sub-discipline of psychology:

Psychology
should not break away from the other social sciences of anthropology,
history, and sociology.

Psychology
is a practical science. In order for psychological interventions
to be adequate, this science cannot remain indifferent to the
developments and changes in society and culture at large.

Psychology
also has a critical function. If the local cultural values are
not explicated by contrasting them with other values in other
times and at other places, psychology is doomed to adopt uncritically
in its scientific practice the local mores and customs.

Rutten's
idea to not only initiate a cultural psychology but also a psychology
of religion in Nijmegen, goes back to Wilhelm Wundt. Religion is
a system that exerts its influence on nearly every other aspect
of culture, including the local conventions of self definition.
By appointing Professor Han Fortmann in 1957, the program of cultural
psychology and psychology of religion took a start. In 1971 Fortmann's
Inleiding tot de cultuurpsychologie [Introduction to cultural
psychology] was published.

Initially,
cultural psychology at the Nijmegen university was used for the
development of a scientific perspective on religion. That explains
why the Catholic University of Nijmegen did harbor a cultural psychology
department at such an early point in time. The liaison with the
scientific study of religion has stamped this young sub-discipline,
of course. Originally, this new branch of psychological research
focused on issues of religion and mental health. But, quite surprisingly
(for who could have predicted the rather rapid decline of religious
affiliation, particularly in catholic circles?), since the early
sixties secularization took a strong hold on intellectual endeavors
in the new department of cultural psychology. Many will now recognize
in hindsight what the outcome of that process was: the discipline
took a firm position in the newly created debate on the use of science
for public well-being of, particularly, those sections of society
in which oppression and domination were felt the most. In that regard
cultural psychology in Nijmegen became a main local force in the
turn to the political left. The department shared this particular
concern with many others around the globe.

The
research at that time was mainly on youth culture, the student movement
of the sixties and the seventies, feminism, and the beliefs and
opinions of the oppressed classes. It remained a local affair, since
there did not exist any pressures to "go international", so to speak.
The NCPG published predominantly in local journals, issued local
readers, did local research with questionnaires, and constructed
variable schemes which were quite in accordance with the fads and
fashions in research at that time.

One
could not speak of much international interest in culture at that
time in the community of psychologists. The very few who took an
interest in culture, were dispersed and had not gone so far as to
organize themselves. Of course, there existed some scattered movements:
in the cross-fertilization of psychoanalysis and ethnology (the
culture and personality school), or later on in anthropology at
large (psychological anthropology), and in Marxist and leftist circles
in the profession (those who favored the Russian Cultural Historical
School of Vygotsky and others in developmental psychology), but
up till very recent, no single journal existed which could provide
a sheltering home for those who wanted to study the relationship
of psychology and culture seriously. One could object that there
existed cross-cultural psychology. But anyone could see right away
that this branch of psychology (with a very long history, that is
for sure) was in almost permanent crisis about what psychological
instruments and techniques developed in Western societies could
contribute to our understanding of the psychological functioning
of people abroad. If one did find differences in psychological functioning,
they either were so small and of so little importance, that no real
inspiration could be drawn from these findings. Or they were so
large that the problems of interpretation became insurmountable.

To
cut an intricated history short, due to the fact that one encountered
cultural practices among those peoples of other cultures (which
were not the same as the ones psychologists ran into at home) the
whole cross-cultural gang, which really did care about other cultures
and other forms of psychological functioning, closed its ranks and
started what now tends to become a real movement in the USA: cultural
psychology. "Cultural psychology" now counts among its ranks famous
psychologists like Michael Cole, Richard Shweder, Hazel Markus,
Jerome Bruner and many others. Due to this state of affairs, the
tide turned and the international scientific community discovered
the importance of culture in the science of the individual. At that
point, the NCPG could tie up its more than thirty year old occupation
with culture and psychology with the international developments.